Of course Camilla will be Queen

Last updated at 09:35 14 February 2005

Camilla Parker Bowles will become Queen when the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne. That seems to be the consensus among historians since last week's wedding announcement. So, why aren't we told this? Because, poor lambs, we're not quite ready for it.

There's still some public ill-will against marriage-busting Mrs Parker Bowles. Her April 8 wedding might attract unseemly public protests if it was known to be the first official step in the creation of Queen Camilla.

By the time Charles succeeds to the throne, we'll have got used to the idea of Queen Camilla. We'll have seen them together for years and won't mind her being Queen by then. So the story goes.

Everything to do with our 'constitutional' monarchy is up in the air. That's the beauty of having an unwritten constitution, say royalists. They can make it up as they go along while we - their subjects - look on admiringly.

Sometimes, though, the naked cynicism of royal self-preservation procedures sticks in the craw. You think: do we really need all this? How about a little more candour? If the institution of monarchy can't support it, so be it.

Last week, explaining why Camilla would be styled 'Princess Consort' after Charles succeeds to the throne, the palace statement said: "There is no Act of Parliament that says the wife of the King is Queen."

Indeed so. What they didn't say was that they'll need an Act of Parliament to prevent Camilla becoming Queen. It's not just a custom that wives of the King become Queen; their right to do so is protected by common law as well. Legislation is required to remove it.

The last time they tried to organise such a morganatic marriage, in which the wife doesn't automatically share her husband's titles, was when Edward VIII sought to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson. A proposed morganatic marriage was unacceptable to the then Government and Edward VIII abdicated the throne.

Why, in the 21st century - with the main goals of feminism established by law - would a device which reduces the status of a royal wife have more chance of acceptance than in the Thirties?

The fact is that women have more rights than men when marrying into the Royal Family. George VI's non-royal wife, Elizabeth, became Queen Consort when he succeeded his brother, Edward, as King. When he died she became the Queen Mother after their elder daughter succeeded as Queen.

After half a century married to the Queen, Prince Philip, who was royal before his marriage, doesn't even enjoy the title of Prince Consort, far

less King Consort. He once called himself "a bloody amoeba" - a reference to the microscopic organism which has no fixed shape. And if the Queen dies before him, I don't think it's likely he'll be called The King Father.

Neither of Princess Anne's two husbands, nor her two children, were automatically eligible for royal titles.

Yet the wives of her brothers Charles, Andrew and Edward got titles and the style Her Royal Highness. So did their children.

If Charles and Camilla's marriage is to be morganatic we should be told as much, and advised on when the necessary legislation will be put before Parliament.

If, on the other hand, it's merely pretend morganatic - and they hope we'll accept her as Queen by the time Charles succeeds to the throne - we should be told that as well.

There was a learned debate on Radio 4 about the plays for which Arthur Miller would be best remembered. None of the contributors was vulgar enough to mention that marrying Marilyn Monroe guarantees

his immortality.

Works such as Death Of A Salesman and The Crucible contain important insights into American life, but they are already rather dated.They merely qualify Mr Miller for the foothills of immortality. Being married to Marilyn for five-and-a-half years puts him on another plane altogether.

Perhaps it was knowing this which made him seem ungracious in his references to her.

He said Marilyn wanted him to be her lover, her friend and her agent, all rolled into one; he said she regarded criticism of any kind as betrayal.

Such a man does not exist, he said.This isn't so. Most of us are compelled to combine such diverse disciplines without the incentive of sharing a four-poster with Miss Monroe.

Harrods boss Mohamed al Fayed sends brown envelopes to his senior executives warning them to buck up their ideas.

Under his rigorous reign, the Knightsbridge store has lost five chief executives in four years, and 40 directors during the past 12 years. But why brown envelopes?

Perhaps the old rascal has some left over from the days in which he used them to send money to compliant Tory MPs.

Behind the sofa wars

Reports on the great cheap sofa riot at Ikea, in North London, persist in blaming the firm's management for the fact that shoppers went amuck.

The local Labour MP David Lammy thinks it was irresponsible for Ikea to offer leather sofas for £45.

Let's be plain about this. Six people ended up in hospital and 20 were laid out with heat exhaustion because stupid, greedy shoppers lost control and fought each other like animals.

Ikea did not advertise its sale by saying: "A limited number of sofas for sale at £45. Fight each other for them."

The usual excuse for this kind of behaviour - that those involved are poor, or hungry - isn't available on this occasion.

Those who caused the injuries were simply greedy fools who ought to be prosecuted.

Labour's latest slogan 'Britain forward not back' is ungrammatical nonsense, typical of a Government that does not govern but instead advertises that it is doing so.

They might as well have made it 'Britain up not down' or 'Britain a success not a failure'.

To paraphrase the poet Stevie Smith, 'Britain not waving but drowning' seems more appropriate.

Playing the part of Katharine Hepburn to Leonardo DiCaprio's Howard Hughes, she acted her co-star off the screen. But she was working with great material.

I felt sorry for Kate Beckinsale, who is criticised for her depiction of Ava Gardner.

In real life, sultry Miss Gardner's accent and mannerisms were less memorable - and less of a turn - than those of classy dame Miss Hepburn.

There's money in the poor

Wlly Maley, a professor of literature in Glasgow, says there are two kinds of people who decry the focus on poverty in Scottish writing and culture: "The first is the arrogant snob who's never known poverty; the second is the first-generation professional who thinks if I can do it, anyone can. The reality is that there is massive poverty in this city. You'd either need to be a liar or a well-paid media person to deny that."

Maybe so, but it's readers from these hated groups - not the poor - who wallow in such Scottish writing.

I know a comfortably-off matron in genteel Perth who listens to audio-tape editions of James Kelman's expletive-sprinkled tales of Caledonian low-life.

And why is this genre so fascinating to writers? For the same reason offered by U.S. criminal Willie Sutton when he was asked why he kept robbing banks: "That's where the money is."

This nasty insight trips up Howard

What were Michael Howard's thoughts when he submitted himself to filmmaker Michael Cockerell for the BBC2 documentary No More Mr Nasty?

He must have known some of the questions would be pointed, that painful remarks would be made about his character and personality. Obviously, his calculation was that he would have time to project the most positive aspects of himself, and uncommitted voters might find him an attractive alternative to Tony Blair.

The film was highly destructive. Having to watch clips of Rory Bremner sending him up and Jeffrey Archer urging him to crack down harder on criminals must have been agony for Mr Howard. His fixed grin was more telling than any natural look of revulsion.

The scenes involving him meeting the public - "take a couple of shots of Mr Howard with the black people!" cried a jolly-looking hairdresser whose salon he entered - were stiff and unconvincing.

His glassy smile while answering questions bordering on offensive was off-putting. Footage of him conferring with his staff helped ambitious underlings such as David Cameron and George Osborne more than himself. And yet, and yet - surely some good came of this masochistic exercise?

The underlying assumption that he hasn't got a hope might have angered some viewers who are uncommitted. So might the arrogant dismissal of Mr Howard by interviewee Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair's dirty tricks expert.